Ukraine: The soldiers who can’t leave the front line until the war is over

[Social Media]

 

Open-ended service, just 10 days leave a year and a high casualty rate - for Ukrainian soldiers in one unit, life on the front line is far from easy, as BBC Newsnight witnessed up close.

Standing among some flattened buildings, "Jimmy", a Ukrainian officer who's been on active service for years, reflected on his survival: "I'm a lucky man… as I see it, war can either love people or not."

His soldiers think the fact Jimmy's still with them, despite multiple wounds, means he lives a charmed life.

His unit, the 24th Mechanised Brigade, has a long history, and is part of the old regular Ukrainian army, fighting the Russians from 2014. But since the invasion of February 2022, the army has more than trebled in size, the nation mobilised and Jimmy's unit changed out of all recognition.

We spent two weeks in August with the 24th, which now serves in the Donbas, that old centre of smokestack industries in the east, occupying a section of the front between Bakhmut and Horlivka.

And we went to the home community in western Ukraine where the brigade was garrisoned before the war, and where many of its families still live.

 

Jimmy - the Ukrainian army asks that we use soldiers' nicknames rather than their real ones - commands a company (usually about 120 troops), a post he stepped into last year. One officer told me that none of the 15 company commanders in post at the start of the war are still in place, all having been promoted or become casualties.

In the run-up to war, the 24th Brigade was just over 2,000 strong, rotating its three battalions to the front line in eastern Ukraine for occasional tours of duty. Although the Ukrainian army rarely discusses numbers, sources told me it has now swelled to more than 7,000, with a total of five infantry battalions, four of artillery, a tank battalion and numerous other supporting elements.

 

FULL STORY

 

 

 

[Tug]

Sounds tough it really sucks they have to go through so much all because a despot wants to exterminate their country salva Ukraine evict the orks kill that animal Putin 

[ballpoint]

Russians leave the front line - the war ends.

Ukrainians leave the front line - Ukraine ends.

[thaibeachlovers]

Title is erroneous. Many are leaving the front line in body bags.

When it's all over will they say it was worth it?

 

Seems strange that some men are apparently able to escape to Thailand, while others are condemned to stay till the end.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, ballpoint said:

Russians leave the front line - the war ends.

Ukrainians leave the front line - Ukraine ends.

I doubt Ukraine ends. Just the eastern part that Russia wants.

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I doubt Ukraine ends. Just the eastern part that Russia wants.

A key Russian general who Russian President Vladimir Putin promoted this week views the invasion of Ukraine as a mere "stepping stone" to further conflict with Europe.

[rabas]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I doubt Ukraine ends. Just the eastern part that Russia wants.

At Munich in 1938, Chamberlain got an international agreement that Hitler should have the Sudetenland in exchange for Germany making no further demands for land in Europe. Chamberlain said it was 'Peace for our time'. Hitler said he had 'No more territorial demands to make in Europe.

 

Imagine believing that again, about a despot who already said he wants more.

 

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/chamberlain-and-hitler/

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/27/2023 at 1:36 PM, rabas said:

At Munich in 1938, Chamberlain got an international agreement that Hitler should have the Sudetenland in exchange for Germany making no further demands for land in Europe. Chamberlain said it was 'Peace for our time'. Hitler said he had 'No more territorial demands to make in Europe.

 

Imagine believing that again, about a despot who already said he wants more.

 

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/chamberlain-and-hitler/

I am well aware of Chamberlain and his "piece of paper", but he was likely speaking from a place of weakness. Britain was hopelessly unprepared for the war, and IMO it wasn't till Churchill took over that they started to prepare seriously.

Dunkirk was the example that proves my point. The British were completely outfought by a superior force.

 

BTW, if Britain had the atom bomb back then, do you think Hitler would have invaded Poland?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/27/2023 at 1:36 PM, rabas said:

Imagine believing that again, about a despot who already said he wants more.

It's been proven that Russia was not prepared for a conventional war against a tenacious enemy, so if he was actually stupid enough to attack a NATO country it would have, IMO, to involve nuclear munitions.

Do you think Putin is mad enough to get into a nuclear exchange with the US?

[heybruce]

52 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am well aware of Chamberlain and his "piece of paper", but he was likely speaking from a place of weakness. Britain was hopelessly unprepared for the war, and IMO it wasn't till Churchill took over that they started to prepare seriously.

Dunkirk was the example that proves my point. The British were completely outfought by a superior force.

 

BTW, if Britain had the atom bomb back then, do you think Hitler would have invaded Poland?

Not sure what the point of your last statement is.  Why not ask "If Ukraine had not given up its nuclear weapons do you think Putin would have invaded?"

[rabas]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's been proven that Russia was not prepared for a conventional war against a tenacious enemy, so if he was actually stupid enough to attack a NATO country it would have, IMO, to involve nuclear munitions.

Do you think Putin is mad enough to get into a nuclear exchange with the US?

First, I don't accept your premise that Putin would not take the rest of Ukraine because he would need nukes to attack NATO. It's a bit flawed like a Möbius strip.

 

Likewise, the irrational nature of Putin's initial invasion does not argue for rational behavior going forward. 

 

Further, nothing about World, Russian, or Putin's history even hints that Putin would be satisfied with Eastern Ukraine. Remember he initially attacked Kyiv from the North West.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, rabas said:

First, I don't accept your premise that Putin would not take the rest of Ukraine because he would need nukes to attack NATO. It's a bit flawed like a Möbius strip.

 

Likewise, the irrational nature of Putin's initial invasion does not argue for rational behavior going forward. 

 

Further, nothing about World, Russian, or Putin's history even hints that Putin would be satisfied with Eastern Ukraine. Remember he initially attacked Kyiv from the North West.

 

Ah, perhaps I missed that you were only talking about taking the rest of Ukraine. I thought you were talking about rest of Europe.

Having been well trashed in the initial attack on Ukraine, does anyone think it even possible that the Russians could take all of Ukraine, even if Putin wanted to?

 

Putin has been in charge for a very long time, but can you share which other countries he has invaded in that time, not including Chechnya, as I think that was from before his time as leader.

 

Likewise, the irrational nature of Putin's initial invasion does not argue for rational behavior going forward. 

Putin would not be the only leader to have overestimated his military's ability, but perhaps you could point out what was "irrational" about the initial invasion from a purely military basis. Seems quite rational to me that they would try to seize the capital as soon as possible.

 

 

[rabas]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah, perhaps I missed that you were only talking about taking the rest of Ukraine. I thought you were talking about rest of Europe.

Having been well trashed in the initial attack on Ukraine, does anyone think it even possible that the Russians could take all of Ukraine, even if Putin wanted to?

 

Putin has been in charge for a very long time, but can you share which other countries he has invaded in that time, not including Chechnya, as I think that was from before his time as leader.

 

Likewise, the irrational nature of Putin's initial invasion does not argue for rational behavior going forward. 

Putin would not be the only leader to have overestimated his military's ability, but perhaps you could point out what was "irrational" about the initial invasion from a purely military basis. Seems quite rational to me that they would try to seize the capital as soon as possible.

Your original  point  "It's been proven that Russia was not prepared for a conventional war against a tenacious enemy,"  So, starting the most massive invasion of a sovereign nation since the WWII era, knowingly unprepared, is pretty irrational.  So, why do you assume a more rational future Putin?

 

Concerning Russian esp. Putin's rationality, see renowned Putin expert Julia Ioffe's interview 'Putin's Road to War'. Below is a clip asking how dangerous is Putin. Also watch her full interview. Her interviews average about 5M views.

 

 

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah, perhaps I missed that you were only talking about taking the rest of Ukraine. I thought you were talking about rest of Europe.

Having been well trashed in the initial attack on Ukraine, does anyone think it even possible that the Russians could take all of Ukraine, even if Putin wanted to?

 

Putin has been in charge for a very long time, but can you share which other countries he has invaded in that time, not including Chechnya, as I think that was from before his time as leader.

 

Likewise, the irrational nature of Putin's initial invasion does not argue for rational behavior going forward. 

Putin would not be the only leader to have overestimated his military's ability, but perhaps you could point out what was "irrational" about the initial invasion from a purely military basis. Seems quite rational to me that they would try to seize the capital as soon as possible.

Putin has been destabilizing bordering countries that have expressed interest in joining NATO--Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.  He will never stop doing so while he is in power.

 

Also, Russia's second war with Chechnya, the one in which Grozny was flattened, was under Putin.  https://www.npr.org/2022/03/12/1085861999/russias-wars-in-chechnya-offer-a-grim-warning-of-what-could-be-in-ukraine

 

 

 

Georgia 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/29/2023 at 2:42 PM, rabas said:

So, starting the most massive invasion of a sovereign nation since the WWII era, knowingly unprepared, is pretty irrational. 

Where did I say "knowingly unprepared"?

If you are going to quote me, perhaps you could stop inventing things I never said.

 

On 9/29/2023 at 2:42 PM, rabas said:

Concerning Russian esp. Putin's rationality, see renowned Putin expert Julia Ioffe's interview 'Putin's Road to War'. Below is a clip asking how dangerous is Putin. Also watch her full interview. Her interviews average about 5M views.

Considering I never heard of her, why should I believe anything she says? I've had more than enough of so called experts that are later proven to be talking through their hats- eg weapons of mass destruction in a previous conflict, and a certain general that ended up with a great deal of egg on face.

BTW, said general sort of vanished following that debacle.

 

[rabas]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where did I say "knowingly unprepared"?

If you are going to quote me, perhaps you could stop inventing things I never said.

Where did I say you did?  Your words that I quoted were in . . . . quotation marks! 

 

'Knowingly unprepared' is simply recorded history.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, rabas said:

Where did I say you did?  Your words that I quoted were in . . . . quotation marks! 

 

'Knowingly unprepared' is simply recorded history.

No, it's your opinion.